Comments (24)

• Morpheus

  It's exciting to see even the left exploring the concept of the "right of exit." I see it as a positive step toward recognition of this right at the individual level.

  Published: November 9, 2004 10:01 AM

• Andy D

  It may be positive academically, but the left lost this election by a landslide POPULARLY because they are too far to the left. Even a debate in the radical newspapers will alienate even more from thier side. They seem to not be able to look at their "causes" from the opppositions standpoint and see how radical they can be.

  Published: November 9, 2004 10:45 AM

• Dennis Sperduto

  Morpheus,
  Your well-meaning comment would be right on the mark if the left was actually serious about extending the right of secession down to the individual level or something close to it. The left is talking secession because, at least for the time being, they can't have their way at the national level. Although some of the details may be different, the left is just as opposed to individual liberty as is the right. I live in one of the "blue" states, and I don't believe my economic and civil liberties would increase at all if New Jersey seceeded. In fact, without the counter-balancing provided by the right at the national level, my economic liberties and property rights would possibly further deteriorate under a secession scenerio.

  Published: November 9, 2004 11:49 AM

• plowman

  Dennis,

  I agree with you that my blue state, California (where people have been talking about seceeding since before this election) would not become a defender of property rights or economic freedom if it were to seceed. However, the hope that I retain is that secession or at least the threat of it would derail the empirical intentions of the federal government, and could dramatically change the political scene worldwide.

  For instance, if an independent California were to implement the kind of socialism its citizens lean toward, an independent Nevada next door would be encouraged to reduce economic interference and taxation, and this kind of competition would eventually force Californians to reconsider. Without the support of the federal government, and with friendly neighboring competition, there would be no way California could maintain its level of prosperity, and it would have to change. The ol' voting with your feet argument.

  Published: November 9, 2004 1:39 PM

• Dennis Sperduto

  Plowman,
  Good comment. My remarks were directed at the motives of those in the "blue" states who are considering secession; their motives have little if anything to do with individual liberty and much to do with political power. Your argument regarding competing, smaller nations holds potential, and I hope it would yield positive results. However, it remains to be seen to what extent the new, smaller nations would resort to economic tactics such as restrictions on immigration, trade, and capital mobility. One benefit of the U.S. as it is currently constituted is that there is relatively free trade and capital and labor mobility over a large and varied area.

  Published: November 9, 2004 2:47 PM

• Tracy Saboe

  The other thing is, with-out the socialist states being on the Federal dole, it will be harder for them to fund their destruction of wealth.

  Tracy

  Published: November 9, 2004 3:19 PM

• MIke

  It's a fact that the red states take a higher proportion of federal dole than the blue states. In addition to that there is all the theocratic nutcakes that so much of the blue states prefer to elect. I can see why there is talk of secession by some residents of blue states.

  Published: November 10, 2004 3:49 AM

• Mike

  I see that I've mixed my blues with my reds. I should have written that red states prefer to elect theocratic nutcakes.

  Published: November 10, 2004 5:38 AM

• Collin S. Ferguson

  Left this Right that! I am so sick an tired of this bull****.

  My name is Collin S. Ferguson, I am an owner of a Yahoo Group called SavePac, or Save Pacifica and I am an advocate for secession of a nation called Pacifia (Alaska, Yukon Territory, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, a region in northern California and Southern Oregon called Jefferson, and California.

  I did not get involved with secessionist movements because I am a liberal who feels under-represented. I am tired of U.S. government policy: globally and domestically. My viewpoint simply stems from the idea that Pacifica can do better in creating an efficient democracy. Do you really think that Bush won the election in 2000? Do you really think he won the 2004 popular vote when he was behind in the polls a week prior? A research group from Harvard University is now discussing voting purges as the true means to Bush Victory in 2000 and 2004. In other words, purge the votes that would other wise swing the election: http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/electoral_reform/residual_ballot.php.

  Voting purges is only one example for secession. There is also the concept of sustainable economy, which the U.S. government is lagging behind--even under Clinton, sustainable economy growth was struggling. Take for instance the overwhelming switch in American economy from an exporter to an importer. Today's American econmy is largely based on the Service Industry, which does not produce the kind of middle class wages necessary to live comfortably in the United States. Then there is environmentalism. The U.S. did not sign the Kyoto Protocol, which in some instances is understandable, as the protocol would have given developing nations, perhaps and unfair advantage, but the U.S. since then has done little to aggressively assert the need to abate Global Warming pollutants.

  Let's discuss 9/11. The war on Terrorism is not a vehicle for the nation's security, but a vehicle for U.S. empirialism. Saddam was a danger, but he was not a gloabl danger--only a danger to his own people, as the U.N. was able to destroy 95% of Iraqi military capabilities including nearly all WMD potential. Hence, this is why the U.S. military has not found them weapons. What the War on Terrorism will do is give the U.S. gov't an excuse to invade any country it desires-- countries that host "terrorists." Remember, we host terrorists too-- did everyone forget the Oklahoma City Bombing? Now, the U.S. has the right to invade the "axis of evil" and create the perpetual war that will make the entire world submit to the whims of the U.S. aristocracy. Oh and, Clinton was very much a part of this too--not just Bush.

  And then there is the Patriot Act, and potentially the Patriot Act II and III in the next four years. This law allows a huge increase in government surveillance-- something that Kerry voted for and John Ashcroft wrote. The Act allows telephone, email, cell phone, snail mail tapping, increase wire tapping, unfarily targets minority groups as potential terrorists, and will allow law enforcement to curb civil disobedience with the Ememy Combatant clause. An enemy cobatant is defined as anyone who does not aggree with an Federal Executive (Presidential) viewpoint, and can be arrested for having that opposing viewpoint--the end of democracy as we know it. The book "The Soft Cage: Surveillance in America: From Slavery to the War on Terror" is an excellent read about how past governments "controlled" their people and how the U.S. is doing it more efficently and subversively.

  I must admit, however, that I am a little sick and tired of the "Right" and its self-righteousness on issues of Gay marriage and Abortion, and I am saddened that these issues had such a great impact on the election. Perhaps there is a reason why a "gay marriage" admendment was never put into the constitution in the first place. And, the reason for this is because of the Separation of Church and State. Gay marriage is a social issue with religious ties. I come from the perspective that people have the right do what they please as long as they do not have a determental effect on society or economic efficiency. Gay Marriage in many Canadian towns on the West Coast has shown to boost econmic activity, tourism dollars, and tax income. Many religious advocate will cite the Bible as proof of damage to society. But, come on, the science of psycology has proven this to not be true; and remember "separation of church and state?"

  Abortion is a difficult issue, and there are many situations in which I am "on the fence" about it. But, I believe that a woman has a right to do with her body as she pleases. I believe in reincarnation, so it is not like the baby can't come back anyway--oh damn, another religious issue! Now I know what the forefathers were thinking!

  In closing, why am I for secession? Because I believe that the U.S. government and the American people have abandoned the principles in which the country was founded on, and have not progressively taken on new principles necessary to sustain life on this Planet. Now the issues are "left" v. "right," which means democracy is failing in America, and it is bound to get a lot worse if people do not "wake up and smell the coffee," start working together, and pay attention to what their government is doing. I am proud to be an American, but I see America dying, and I am simply preparing the West Coast for this death so that a new nation can form keeping life liveable. People also need to understand that there are several regions in this country that have different political and cultural viewpoints. The East Coast is nothing like the West Coast. The South, and I mean South East, is nothing like the Northern Mid-Western States. We unite on the concept of State Rights and a Constitution and Bill of Rights designed to keep people free, thus allowing them to pursue the "right of happiness." As I have said before, the American people and the U.S. government are abandoning this concept. And, that is why I choose to secede from the United States.

  Published: November 10, 2004 9:27 PM

• Vanmind

  "Nine Nations of North America"

  I read this book about 15 years ago. I remember it as being mostly fluff, but maybe an update is due to address some evolving issues.

  Published: November 11, 2004 4:06 PM

• SteamshipTime

  Personally, I don't think a single blue state will secede because that would mean giving up the dream of imposing their politically correct, multi-culti values on the rest of the country.
  .
  It does make for a nice thought experiment though. The most profound and immediate effect would be a fire sale on US bonds. I'd love to see the look on boobus Americanus's face when he realizes those things represent actual liabilities that must be paid or defaulted upon. Then imagine the boobi's collective horror once they realize all those folks in the marble palaces in D.C. and protecting the borders of 110 foreign countries don't work for free.
  .
  In order to spark a credible break up of the United States, conditions would have to be equivalent to those in the Soviet Union, where the majority of citizens had completely lost faith in their government. We are a long way from that point. In fact, the past election, where more citizens turned out to vote than ever before, constitutes a ringing endorsement of the current system of governance.

  Published: November 13, 2004 9:10 AM

• Steven Kane

  "We are a long way from that point. In fact, the past election, where more citizens turned out to vote than ever before, constitutes a ringing endorsement of the current system of governance."

  We will see if that holds true when the bankruptcy of the welfare state is imminent.

  Published: November 18, 2004 7:13 PM

• craig

  the blue states should form there own nation , most college educated people voted for Kerry. we would have a nation of intellectuals instead of the idiots that voted for bush.

  Published: November 21, 2004 6:32 PM

• foobar

  You guys need to get out of dogma pimping and re-read LVM's work on human action and praxeology! What's the rational basis of banal progressivism?! All this talk about states wanting to quit the USA is nothing but sour grapes. You can't: (a) mandate the prax. framework of 200 million individuals, and (b) chuck it in when the same millions reject your framework. Don't harden your positions, attempt to understand how the MAJORITY defines their goals and predicate their actions!

  Published: November 21, 2004 7:00 PM

• Committe for Formation of Pacifican Party

  California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington.

  One nation: PACIFICA

  
  htttp://www.republicofpacifica.org

  Published: November 28, 2004 1:54 PM

• Joe

  I keep on hearing this BS about landslides. In 2000, Bush lost, by the popular and if it was not for Justice Scalia changing his mind on federalism, the electoral vote. Dubya aced then as if he won by a landslide. That is why people want to secede now. With 3%, who knows what he will try and do. He has nothing even close to a mandate. His margin of victory isn't to far off from Kennedy's over Nixon. Do not act as if there is a lot of support. That leads to tyranny. Don’t talk about majority in other sections of government proving a majority either. The 55% of Americans voted for a democrat over a republican for the US senate. If it wasn’t for all those states with more broken down rusted out cars than people, the democrats would have a 5 seat majority in the senate. A push for too much unwanted change could get you more than you bargained for.

  Published: January 3, 2005 5:57 AM

• Abbot Route

  All this foolish talk about seceding is nothing but treason while our nation is at war, or at any other time.

  There are two principal groupings crying about seceding. One is the radical communist trash who would not even be screaming but these two time losers love their version of America only when controlling the White House and Congress

  The other is the 'neo-Confederate' white supremacist, 'Lost Cause' movement, made up of bigoted malcontents still upset over losing 'legal' racial discrimination in the mid-1960's.

  The best option for the nation as a whole would be if the pro-segregationists and the radical leftist rabble move out of the United States, as many threatened.

  Hopefully both collections of subversives will relocate to the same place and get rid of each other, which would do wonders for cleaning up America!

  Published: May 17, 2005 3:12 AM

• Gray

  What's this talk about secession all about? It's about Patriotism. It's about Liberty. This is about being safe. It's about re-examining the "Experiment". If you love your country and you believe its' leaders are making the wrong military and geopolitical choices, then it is not only patriotic to question their actions, it is your duty.
  

  Published: June 29, 2005 4:31 AM

• Kurt

  Joe wrote, "I keep on hearing this BS about landslides. In 2000, Bush lost, by the popular and if it was not for Justice Scalia changing his mind on federalism, the electoral vote."
  

  
  The decision in question was 7-2 regarding the illegality of cherry-picking the state in an attempt to capture non-existant votes, the decision the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional.
  

  
  The justices noted, 'In precincts using punchcard ballots, voters are instructed to punch out the ballot cleanly:

  "AFTER VOTING, CHECK YOUR BALLOT CARD TO BE SURE YOUR VOTING SELECTIONS ARE CLEARLY AND CLEANLY PUNCHED AND THERE ARE NO CHIPS LEFT HANGING ON THE BACK OF THE CARD." Instructions to Voters, quoted in Brief for Respondent Harris et al. 13, n. 5.'

  One cannot legislate stupidity, and in the pursuit of freedom, those that disobey the rule of law must be punished. Over 12 Million people abided by the law, it's insane to insist that a fraction of less than 1% be accorded preferential treatment.

  Published: February 28, 2006 11:59 AM

• Paul Edwards

  “All this foolish talk about seceding is nothing but treason…�

  Abbot,

  Re-read the Declaration of Independence: it’s got something to say about secession. There is no such thing as treason. It’s a small group of tyrants trying to convince you that liberty and justice is less important than some vague collectivist concept. Dangerous stuff.
  

  Published: February 28, 2006 12:52 PM

• David Shore

  screw DC

  Published: September 24, 2007 5:18 PM

• Emily Batemen

  Americans are free to secede from their country if they wish, but do not presume to take part of Canada with you to form your new regions. We are not interested in leaving our country, nor having you join ours. Isn't it typically American to assume that you can simply take over parts of another country. Forget it! We love Canada as it is, thank you.

  Published: November 4, 2007 3:54 PM

• scineram

  My guess is you are not from Quebec.

  Published: November 4, 2007 4:14 PM

• Anthony

  Emily, it's hardly something that's likely to happen anyway. :p

  Published: November 4, 2007 8:35 PM